Modern and the contemporary nations have been interested in defining themselves by marking certain limits between themselves and others. From a philosophical point of view, the modern nations (which appeared during the XIXth century) were more preoccupied with defining and characterizing their individuality than with participating in a kind of universality inherited from prior centuries. This passage from the universal (kata to olon) to an individual identity had great impact on the political and social levels. The interest in individuality made it possible to acquire knowledge and to appropriate each nation’s characteristics. The process went on during the entire XIXth and even during the beginning of the XXth century in countries which had recently gained their independence. Romania is one such nation which won its independence during the second part of the XIXth century and ended this process only after the end of the first world war with the addition of the large territory of Transylvania in December 1918. Being a very young state, it is obvious that it had a lot of problems in defining and maintaining its national identity.

The interwar period was marked by an obvious interest in defining the Romanian identity. This interest was due not only to the influence of an European cultural wave redefining national identities, but also by the internal reason of being a young state with many problems of ethnicities and a variety of minorities.

Before beginning the critical presentation of his outlook, we must mention that this interest in the definition of the Romanian identity preoccupied many of our thinkers in the interwar period, not only philosophers but also writers, historians and politicians such as, Emil Cioran, Constantin Noica, Constantin Radulescu Motru, Lucian Blaga, Nicolae Iorga, Garabet Ibraileanu, Stefan Zeletin, et al.

This interwar period was marked by two opposite cultural directions: one pro-European oriented toward European achievements, the other self-admiring and oriented toward the promotion of the national specificity, a conservative and traditionalist attitude. The sympathizers of this second attitude felt that the Romanian state could be present in the European context only in terms of its national specificity, an idea inherited from the Romantic period of the XVIIIth and the XIXth centuries, and initiated by German philosophical thinking about Der Volksgeist.

Toward the end of the second decade of the century, several Romanian cultural personalities tried to avoid the "terrifying void" of positivism and technology and to acquire a new "spiritual equilibrium". Attempting to discover the real coordinates of Romanian spirituality and to reorient Romanian culture in a new direction, the younger generation formed an open association called Criterion. Among its members were Mircea Eliade (1907-1986), Emil Cioran (1911-1995) and Mircea Vulcanescu (1904-1952). They had no doubt that they were the missionaries of a new spirituality. They cited Swedenborg, Kierkegaard, Sestov, Heidegger, Unamuno, Berdiaev; they were interested in orphism, theosophy, oriental mysticism and ancient religions; they talked about the providential mission of their generation, criticized capitalist mediocrity and materialism in all its forms. Their mission was to realize the unity of the Romanian soul, to determine the spiritual reconstruction of Romania as their forerunners had achieved its political unification.

In quantitative terms, it has two aspects: unity and multiplicity, whole and part. Unity reveals the nature or specificity; it is only one, rich, strong, and always the same and identical to itself. Multiplicity reveals the creature, each living being, the facts or happenings; it is multiple, weak, unstable, always changing and under the sign of destruction.

The author remarks that the Romanian people consider the world not only as either spatial or temporal, but as both temporal and spatial at the same time. It is a continuous becoming which can be projected spatially, temporally, or both. This continuous becoming, passing or flowing has also a name which is a homonym of that of having a party or passing joyfully a certain period of time. The entire existence of the world is seen as a great pomp, showiness or display that fills time and the space. But all these have their proper time and space in the world. The world is in good order and arrangement, but this is not absolute. This is due to the fact that there is in this world something weak, some principle of disorder, a certain autonomy that makes it possible that not all the things could be complete and in their place. Thus, they do not manifest themselves in due time, imposing a search or wait. For the Romanian the world is a becoming world.

A second characteristic, specific to the entire medieval thinking, as Vulcanescu mentions, is the idea that all the things have a sense, a significance; the world is a book of signs. The Romanian world is not neutral or indifferent; "it is a world governed by good or evil forces, by calls and silences, by displays, appearances and screenings." Each thing in this world is an existence or being, and has something to say to one who knows how to listen to it. Plurality, dynamism and animism represent another dimension of the Romanian being. This generates such phrases as: "The Romanian was born to be a poet," or "the Romanian is unstable," or the remark about "Romanian skepticism" or lack of practical sense and perseverance.

This Romanian world includes not only the real, sensitive world but also the "other one," l’au dela. The passage from here to there is performed by a change in the nature of being. The other world is not outside our world. The other world includes this world, fills it and fulfills it. Thus, there is no gap, no essential rupture between here and there; there is only a passage or custom gate.

The idea of "nowhere" does not mean something outside the world, but the lack of capacity to place or situate something inside the world. The world is both whole and "everywhere". Things inside it are not situated in a stable place, in their place. They "go," "pass" and sometimes "come back". "Over there" does not mean "outside" but "otherwise," "in a different way". Thus, it is only a form of relation or modality, not something essential.

Multiplicity in opposition to unity reveals each individual creature: the happening, the individual and God.

The author goes on to make other distinctions within the concerns of multiplicity and individuality. He discovers the distinctions between creature (being) and thing, and between masculine and feminine which are very important for the Romanian mentality. The individuality of each being (human being—"ins") can afterward be determined on a logical plane by such notions as "chip" (image, face, modality), fundamental for his/her "root," (justification, motivation of existence) as a sum of all his/her possibilities, and "soarta" (fate) as a line of all his/her happenings.

For Romanian popular metaphysics, God is a real being, but paradoxically alone, existing over all existences, an individual ("ins") above essence, but omnipotent for this essence; and the prototype of masculinity. Thus, Vulcanescu considers that the idea of real existence has generated in the Romanian language a type of existence specific to human beings which could be developed not toward an energetic personalism, but toward a theophanic one. In this direction, the individual is finally an illusion, a mirror and a nonindependent phenomenon of the universal, being. This can explain, in the author’s opinion, the Romanian "fatalism defined as an integration of the human being into the universal rhythm." This has as direct effect a ritualist dimension of any Romanian activity.

If we take into consideration the other category, the quality of being, there are two other aspects: (a) being as a characteristic: the fact and modality of being: and (b) the negation of being.

Vulcanescu considers the idea of being in Western thinking as something that takes place. The German Wirklichkeit or the French ‘realite’ express, from distinct directions, the same idea because they connect it to time and space. The Romanian significance of "it happens" is not only "it takes place," but also a place in time. The word "happening" (intamplare) means that a thing is being transformed or it "passes". For a Western, a thing is placed in space, takes place, thus, it is exists; for the Romanian, "what happens has its being even before existing and keeps it even after it is no more in this world." It is a "passage" through this world, not a "creation". Thus, the being seems to have at the same time both temporal and spatial dimensions.

The Romanian language has another significant word: to suffer, suffering (patimire) which means not only suffering (having physical or psychological pains) but also a metaphysical alternation of the being as submitted to the act of someone else. Vulcanescu remarks a certain inheritance here from the Aristotelian category of passivity. Existence is not a sum of actions but a multiplicity of happenings understood as changes of states under the influence of someone else. Thus, the human being is "under the power of times" as one of our historiographers said.

Another significant word which is analyzed is to annihilate, annihilation ("nimicire") which comes from the Latin nihil. That the word "nimicire" has an obvious existential meaning, but only a quantitative one, proves that the Romanian negation is not absolute. What disappears is the aggregate, the image or the structure, but not their being. Even if a person or individual be destroyed, he does not exist hic et nunc or is no longer active, but this means he is no longer in this world and in this time. By his past existence in this world he obtained a surplus of being which he retains. Thus, he still is because he can be considered distinct from what is not and which neither is nor was. There are then two planes of existence: a temporal one and that of subsistence: the first plane can be annihilated, but not the second. Annihilation does not reach being itself.

This special meaning of the Romanian negation is full of consequences. A main one is that there is a mixture between existence and possibility. Thus, anything that can be (or can be thought), is. It is, of course, only in a certain manner of being, but it is. Thus, there is a subtle passage from the plane of existence to that of possibility which assures a lyric dimension to Romanian existence. In this way, existence vanishes into a wider space of possibility.

The final conclusion is that the Romanian mentality is pre-critical or mythic and hence: (1) there is no nothingness; (2) there is no absolute impossibility; (3) there is no existential alternative; (4) there is no imperative; and (5) there is no irremediable situation.

1. There is no nothingness. The idea of nothingness does not have an absolute plane of existence. This idea proves that a being is not here, is not like this or that, or is not any more. In other words, it shows a certain deviation from its absolute way of being toward the way of being into the world or its submission under the power of time. It is thus, a certain deviation from unity to multiplicity. Here a Platonic influence (The Sophist) is obvious.

2. There is no absolute impossibility. If the existence has a regional meaning and if the negation discusses only the way of being and not the fact of being, it results that there is no absolute impossibility of being. Anything that can be taken into consideration, is. We could say that thinking in this way, there is no distinction between the real sensitive plane of being and the rational spiritual plane. The real plane of existence for Romanian thinking should be, in this case, the plane of possibilities, of virtualities, the plane where all things do exist in all their ways of being, actualized and nonactualized and even actualizable and nonactualizable. Vulcanescu considers this characteristic to be oriental. Behind the real, sensitive existence one can find what can be; thus the ancient notion of becoming is not an augmentation of being, but a reduction of possibilities. The virtual dominates the actual. In these conditions, the Romanian does not consider lack of success in life to be a tragedy.

3. There is no alternative. Vulcanescu mentions that the Romaninan people is not pragmatic. This is proved by the prevalence of hypothetical attitudes over categorical ones. The verbal modes preferred by the Romanian language are those referring to the possibility or the future conditional as in the phrase: "What would have been if it had been otherwise than it was?" The conditional and the optative prevail over the simple future; the hypothetical plane is dominant. To choose one alternative means to stop on one of multiple possibilities. At the same time, the fact that it is enough only to think all these possibilities and that they belong to the same plane of existence annihilates the existential sense of the alternative; the imperative to choose among possibilities is annihilated. The "it cannot be possible to not…" which characterizes "necessity" becomes no longer useful. The decision is understood as a border, as a limit. It is a "choice among alternatives" and Romanian word for it refers to concrete, real borders among lands and countries (a hotara, hotarare; hotar=border).

4. There is no imperative. The consequence of the lack of decisions is to modify the significance of the imperative. The Romanian imperative has not the demiurgical sense of the Latin fiat! It is neither an order, nor the expression of a powerful will; it is an acceptance or agreement. Something similar to "Be it your will!". Vulcanescu considers that the imperative is felt by the Romanian as a lack of order in this existence or as a disharmony. The condition of legitimacy is felt as an organic harmony, as freedom.

As a consequence, the Romanian is not disposed to pragmatic attitudes, to practical, activity, to the end of an effort. He is tempted by the moments of his journey (work), not by its end. This can explain his special interest in the calendar. This interest is not a factual or practical one, but the consciousness of belonging to a unity. The calendar makes him capable of situating himself in the world. Thus, his act or activity is a communication, a gesture, a ritual, measured by its function, not by its result.

5. There is no irremediable situation. The Romanian does not have the feeling of an absolute loss, the feeling of something irremediable; thus he feels that facts are not so important. That is why any statistical report in Romania which is intended to be precise and accurate, will not be so. This is due not to the lack of scientific methods, but to the fact that the analyzed events are not very substantial from the Romanian point of view. What determines the Romanian to act is not the result of facts, but the need to be in agreement with the order of things, the need to fulfill his destiny.

Vulcanescu considers that there are two important consequences to this attitude: 1. The Romanian does not judge his existence as a very important problem; 2. he is not afraid of his death.

1. His existence is, as any other existence, a game of possibilities. He does not take it seriously. Thus, he will not be attentive or have a clear perspective on his future. This lack of interest is not indifference. What may be will be, and what is not could not be here, but it will be somewhat else. He is not hurried because any thing has its right time and he knows that.

On the other hand, Vulcanescu draws attention to certain moments in Romanian history when there was an impressive feeling of history, when a consciousness of responsibility called the attention of the people to present actual facts, something of a now or never, the danger of losing everything for a long, long period. But Vulcanescu considers this attitude as a fever of the moment. In Vulcanescu’s opinion, this feeling is a periodic one in the history of the Romanian people: the revolution of 1848 or the war for independence in 1877. After such moments, the Romanian nation return to its "sleepy" attitude. We could mention also the postwar period or even the post ’89 attitude. This Romanian attitude is based, in Vulcancscu’s opinion, on the vision of eternity; one has the feeling of participating to the eternal. This feeling comes from ritual and symbolic behavior.

2.The lack of fear of death is exemplarily expressed by the shepherd in Miarita, the national ballad. He is not afraid of his destruction, but wants to obey a certain cosmic order.

This phenomenological study applied to the ontologic dimension of being can be completed by some other antropological studies on the "Romanian Man". Vulcanescu considers that the basis of a nation is given by the metaphysical dimension mingled in the history of that nation: the "unity of fate, of destiny, the unity for which land, blood, past, law, language, custom, thinking, belief, virtue, work, living places, ways of clothing, pains, happiness, and signs of living together, ruling and oppression represent only proofs and signs of recognition."

The author presents a theory of "temptation" as possibilities of being, as stimuli with minimum resistance. In this sense, he finds several such "temptations" for Romanian spirituality and its becoming.

- the Dacian temptation is considered basic;

- the Roman temptation gave us the sense of laws, our character and consistency;

- the Byzantine temptation provided our politics and spirit of brightness and splendor, but also the spirit of intrigue, robberies and, on the other hand, tolerance and wisdom;

- the Slavic temptation gave us the sense of religiosity, but also flabbiness, excessive enthusiasm, tactfulness and tenderness;

- the French temptation gave us the easiness of expression, the spirit of imitation;

- the German temptation generated the interest for insight, the spirit of metaphysics;

- the Jewish temptation made a large contribution in arts, the exteriorization of feelings;

- the Hungarian and Polish temptation is, in Vulcanescu’s opinion, a form of the Roman temptation mingled with the Byzantine one;

- the Balcanic (Greek-Bulgarian) temptation is a new form of the Byzantine one trivialized;

- the Gipsy temptation gave us nerve, affection, noisy expression, charm, synthesis and the picturesque life of suburbs.

As we can see, Vulcanescu makes an analysis of cultural anthropology. We could comment on some of these characteristics and their belonging to one or other "temptation," but this does not greatly change the scheme for it is a characteristic one. Together with Lucian Blaga and Constantin Noica, Vulcanescu laid the basis of this phenomenological analysis of identity in our culture. Its analysis defines the dimensions of the Romanian identity from an anthropological and ontological point of view. Though some of the data have changed a little during the last 50 years, due to the modifications in the Romanian mentality caused by communist behavior and cultural politics, as well as by urban life, these identity dimensions remain basic. It would be better for our leaders, as well as for our people, if the leadership would take into consideration such aspects when they have to make important decisions for our future.